Bishambhar Dayal, C. J.
1. This is a Writ Petition challenging the election of the President and Vice-Presidents of the Municipal Council, Pandhurna. This is a class III municipality. The term of the previous President and Vice-Presidents having expired, a meeting for electing new President and Vice-presidents was called by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sausar (respondent 1) who also presided over that meeting and new President and Vice-Presidents were elected in that meeting. In this petition the validity of that meeting has been challenged on the ground that it was not called by a proper person and also not presided over by a proper person.
2. The relevant provisions are contained in Section 43 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which is as follows:--
'(a) After every general election the Council shall elect the President and the Vice-Presidents at its first meeting held under Sub-section (2) of Section 55 and the President and the Vice-Presidents so elected shall hold office for a period of two years from the date on which they enter upon their offices.
(b) On the expiry of the term of the office of the President and the Vice-Presidents elected under Clause (a), the Council shall, at a meeting convened for the purpose within one month thereof, elect new President and Vice-Presidents who shall hold office for the unexpired term of the Council.
(c) The provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 55 shall, so faras may be, apply to the meetings under clause (b), as they apply to the first meeting of a Council:
Provided that the President and the Vice-Presidents shall continue in office until their successors enter upon their respective offices in accordance with the provisions of this Act,'
Rule 2 (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (President and Vice-Presidents) Election Rules, 1962, defines the word 'Meeting' as follows:--
''Meeting1 means the meeting of the Council convened or called by the presiding authority under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 43 or Sub-section (2) of Section 55, as the case may be.'
Then, by Rule 2 (d), the expression 'Presiding Authority' also is defined as follows:--
'(i) ...... ...... ...... ...... ... (ii) in the case of first meeting of a Council for class III or class IV municipalities called under Sub-section (2) of Section 55 ... ... ... the Sub-Divisional Officer.'
As stated above, this municipality is a class III municipality. Relevant provisions in respect of such municipalities are contained in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 55 of the Act and may be quoted here:
'(2) The Collector, in the case of Class I and Class II municipalities, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, in the case of Class III and Class IV municipalities, shall call the first meeting of the Council soon after the election and selection of Councilors, to elect the President and Vice-Presidents.
(3) The first meeting of the Council called under Sub-section (2) shall be presided over by the Collector or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be for the purpose of conducting the election of the President and the Vice-President and all provisions contained in this Chapter shall, regarding meetings of the Council as far as may be.apply in respect of the said meeting: .....'
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that this, not being the first meeting, the right to convene any meeting other than the first meeting is vested in the President by Section 56 of the Act: that by Section 59 of the Act the President has to be the chairman of the meeting and in his absence the Vice-President has to be the chairman; and that, if none of them is present, one of the members has to be elected as the chairman. The contention is that according to Sections 56. 57 and 59 of the Act this meeting ought to have been called and presided over by the President himself. We are unable to agree. Sections 56, 57 and 59 laydown provisions with regard to the other meetings. But in respect of meetings for the election of the President and Vice-President after the expiry of the term of the previous President and Vice-president a special procedure is prescribed by Section 43 (2) (b) and (c). That procedure having been followed, there was no illegality in the meeting.
4. No other point was argued before us.
5. We therefore see no force in this petition and dismiss it with costs. The petitioners will pay the costs of respondent No. 2. Counsel fee Rs. 100/-. After deduction of costs of respondent No. 2 from the amount of security the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.